2 - The politics of Luke: a reappraisal

Summary

For the past quarter-millenium biblical scholars have generally supported C. A. Heumann's suggestion that Luke's purpose was to write an apologia pro ecclesia to a Roman magistrate named Theophilus. This point of view has consistently encountered serious exegetical difficulties. Perhaps the way out of these difficulties is to reverse Heumann's proposal. Luke, intending his narrative for the church, has skewed the political nuances of his sources toward a pro-Roman perspective. But before proclaiming too loudly this solution to the problem of Luke's political apologetic, we must examine three items.

First, we need to re-examine the hypothesis that a Roman official reading Luke–Acts would have concluded that Christianity was politically harmless. Secondly, if we are to see Luke's work as pro-Roman, then the ‘anti-Roman’ material in Luke–Acts must be considered. Finally, we must examine the way Luke has reworked his sources in order to attain a pro-Roman perspective. This leads to a detailed investigation of the political apologetic in the lengthy trial narratives of the Third Gospel (Chapter 3) and Acts (Chapter 4).

Did Luke present a politically harmless picture of Christianity?

Most commentators who discuss Luke's political apologetic are quite one-sided in selecting material from Luke–Acts. It is certainly true that Luke wrote much that might have impressed a Roman authority with the political harmlessness of the church: Jesus was declared innocent by Pontius Pilate, Paul was treated fairly and justly by Roman magistrates, and the attitude of the Roman government toward the church was generally neutral.